Changes

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not joking. My problem is that I don't see the evidence to support that claim which you make. While anonymous users add stuff all the time, the metaphorical chaff is quickly separated from the similarly metaphorical wheat, with most unproductive or nonsensical edits being reverted. Further, while Wikipedia may contain some gossip (I certainly imagine that it is quite difficult to police nearly 2m pages simultaneously with only volunteers), it isn't exactly ''allowed'', as the statement implied. Either point me to something on Wikipedia saying that gossip is allowed, or if there is gossip, point it out and some loyal Wikipedian will notice and remove the offending text within a few hours. Simply saying "Wikipedia is the National Enquirer of the internet" is a meaningless smear if one cannot provide a valid justification for the comparison. It's not so much what is right - it is the respectability of being able to back up an otherwise questionable claim. I assume Conservapedia wishes to be respectable. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 08:02, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridicules. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Please remove #3 immediately, it is just plain ridiculous. Who ever wrote that was probably reading news articles with headlines such as "Wikipedia to launch search engine", many of those news articles were so inaccurate that they were not even revised, but taken off the web. I understand that you are referring to Wikia Search when you say search engine, but as one of three Wikia Search sysops I know that the biggest myth about it is that it is in some way connected with Wikipedia. We are constantly fighting this myth. Please make your site more credible by removing this factual inaccuracy off of it. Thanks! [[User:Mschel|Mschel]] 10:07, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face.  Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does.  This is not vandalism.  Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication???  To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia.  I'll let you find the gossip.  There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism.  Conservapedia has a rule against gossip.  Wikipedia does not.  More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: INTregued, your comments are an example of how a [[liberal]] can make an absurd argument with a straight face.  Countless articles on Wikipedia are filled with gossip and it's obvious that the gossip attracts visitors, just as the National Enquirer does.  This is not vandalism.  Do you think the National Enquirer is vandalized before publication???  To take just one example, check out Bertrand Russell's entry on Wikipedia.  I'll let you find the gossip.  There are thousands of examples like that, and it is not vandalism.  Conservapedia has a rule against gossip.  Wikipedia does not.  More examples are at [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters.  Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project.  It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine.  It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this.  Perhaps you're one of them.  How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: Mschel, learn how to spell "ridiculous" for starters.  Then figure out how Wikipedia leaders were able to raise millions for their search engine project.  It was due to the actual and expected preferences in directing Wikipedia traffic to the search engine.  It's remarkable how many Wikipedia volunteers are fooled by this.  Perhaps you're one of them.  How about volunteering to work for Microsoft next?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)